Joining the thread late and its probably already run its course but my tuppence worth is that there are two separate things to consider from a mouth damage point of view in a barbed v barbless debate.
The first is potential damage caused during the hooking/playing of the fish
The second is potential damage caused during the unhooking of the fish.
In my opinion allot of the mouth damage we see is caused at the point of unhooking, not at the point of playing.
Hands up who has ever caught a small Roach or Rudd without a top lip? ...fish dont lose top lips when they are being played, they loose top lips when incompentent anglers rip the hook out and take the fishes mouth with it and the simple fact is a barbless hook will come out easier than a barbed one. Thats the whole point of a barb, to stop it coming out. So from a purely unhooking point of view there is no doubt in my mind that barbless is better as there is less chance someone will struggle to get it out.
Mouth damage from a playing point of view its more tricky. I dont subscribe to the idea that barbless penetrate deeper. I think when you have an angler pulling on one end and a big fish pulling back as hard as it can on the other both will go in as far as they can and a barb will make little difference.
The other considetation when playing is the potential for more lateral movement with barbless so more chance of a slice to one side as it were. Whilst I think this is possible (probably more so with longer finer gauge wire) i would again doubt it makes a huge difference in reality.
All that said my own preference is for barbed. The reason being that at the end of the day i go fishing to catch fish and i have more confidence i will land one on a hook with a barb than one without. If you keep a tight line then a barbless should stay in just as much as a barbed but i am not confident that the line will always stay tight so i prefer the extra confidence that a barb gives.
My preffered pattern of hooks also come with a microbarb which as a few others have suggested are probably a good overall compromise
The first is potential damage caused during the hooking/playing of the fish
The second is potential damage caused during the unhooking of the fish.
In my opinion allot of the mouth damage we see is caused at the point of unhooking, not at the point of playing.
Hands up who has ever caught a small Roach or Rudd without a top lip? ...fish dont lose top lips when they are being played, they loose top lips when incompentent anglers rip the hook out and take the fishes mouth with it and the simple fact is a barbless hook will come out easier than a barbed one. Thats the whole point of a barb, to stop it coming out. So from a purely unhooking point of view there is no doubt in my mind that barbless is better as there is less chance someone will struggle to get it out.
Mouth damage from a playing point of view its more tricky. I dont subscribe to the idea that barbless penetrate deeper. I think when you have an angler pulling on one end and a big fish pulling back as hard as it can on the other both will go in as far as they can and a barb will make little difference.
The other considetation when playing is the potential for more lateral movement with barbless so more chance of a slice to one side as it were. Whilst I think this is possible (probably more so with longer finer gauge wire) i would again doubt it makes a huge difference in reality.
All that said my own preference is for barbed. The reason being that at the end of the day i go fishing to catch fish and i have more confidence i will land one on a hook with a barb than one without. If you keep a tight line then a barbless should stay in just as much as a barbed but i am not confident that the line will always stay tight so i prefer the extra confidence that a barb gives.
My preffered pattern of hooks also come with a microbarb which as a few others have suggested are probably a good overall compromise